Chuck Political Correctness And Challenge Trump

There are several questions which need to be posed to Hillary Clinton.

She ought to be asked why she opposes the Trans Pacific Partnership, which she had periodically praised, once as "the gold standard." However, she already has stated, plausibly though arguably, that she reversed course once its details had been negotiated.

Mrs. Clinton should be queried about her campaign's interest in an endorsement- or some sort of vote of confidence- from the likes of George Schultz, James ("F_ _ _ the Jews") Baker, Condoleezza Mushroom Cloud Rice, and Henry Kissinger. However, she could write off support from any of those individuals as recognition that the brazenly unqualified Trump should not get his hands on the "nuclear codes."

It is stunning, or should be, that the Democratic candidate never has been asked when she dropped her support of President Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" approach to abortion in favor of a safe and legal approach.  Presumably, though, her support for the earlier test has been undermined by GOP efforts in numerous states to force a woman to jump through hoops to control her own body.

There are, though, two criticial questions now begging be asked of Donald Trump, who Friday claimed at a rally in Altoona, Pennsylvania

The only way we can lose, in my opinion — I really mean this, Pennsylvania is if cheating goes on and we have to call up law enforcement and we have to have the sheriffs and the police chiefs and everyone watching because if we get cheated out of this election, if we get cheated out of a win in Pennsylvania, which is such a vital state especially when I know what is happening here. She can’t beat what’s happening here. The only way they can beat it in my opinion, and I mean this 100 percent, if in certain sections of the state they cheat.

Grump appears to be laying the groundwork for denying the legitimacy of the election, and presidency, of Hillary Clinton if she is elected in November.  The GOP never has fully accepted the legitimacy of President Barack Hussein Obama and signs indicate, that there would be less acceptance among Republicans of Mrs. Clinton's approval by the electorate.

Yet there is another critical question which Trump has practically begged be asked:  What are these "certain sections" of which he speaks?

It's not as if we don't know, especially as Grump specified Pennsylvania, in which Democrats have won state and federal elections only by piling up huge majorities in Philadelphia with its large black population.  Voter suppression (map from the Brennan Center) continues in numerous states while many Republican voters believe, facts be damned, that some individuals cast numerous votes in the same election. (CNN's Michael Smerconish Saturday morning said that if pressed, Trump will cite the hpyed-up November, 2008 New Black Panthers incident, in which ominous-looking black males in uniform hung out at a polling place in a precinct in West Philadelphia in which fewer than 90 of 1500 registered voters were Republicans.)

It's no coincidence that it was in Pennsylvania where a prominent Republican state legislator in June, 2012 boasted "Pro-Second Amendment? The Castle Doctrine, it's done. First pro-life legislation-a abortion facility regulations- in 22 years,done. Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done."

Ask Donald Grump what "certain sections" he was referring to. Ask, too, Paul Ryan, comfortable with supporting for President of the USA someone he considers racist, if he believes Democrats may rig the results in Pennsylvania.  Or the media can sidestep the issue of race, save Trump the discomfort of challenging him on his remarks, and thereby save him by an unintended exercise of political correctness.




 

Share |

He Asked For It

Paul in Galations 6:7 writes "Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap."  That's not a far cry from "be careful what you wish for."

Perhaps neither applies here, but I needed an introduction.  USA Today reports that parent company Gannett

and The New York Times Co. asked the New York Supreme Court Thursday to unseal the records of Donald Trump's 1990 divorce from Ivana Trump.

The divorce was granted on the ground of "cruel and inhuman treatment" but Donald and Ivana Trump later reached a settlement. The case has percolated through the news over the years, including stories earlier in the presidential campaign season about whether the billionaire, who is now the Republican presidential nominee, sexually assaulted his then-wife.

Given that, according to USA Today, Ivana has "downplayed any reference to assault in the divorce proceedings," still is very friendly with Trump and supports his presidential candidacy, it's not difficult to predict how this plays out if the information is unsaled. We will find out that Mr. Trump did sexually assault Mrs. Trump, to whatever extent and for whatever period of time. Ivana then will deny that it took place.

As people will accurately point out, the behavior took place decades ago and times and mores have changed.

The information also is far less relevant than what is in Donald Trump's tax returns. According to a letter posted on the candidate's website, "examination for retuns for the year 2009 and forward are ongoing," though the IRS will neither confirm nor deny.

Although most taxperts would recommend that such an individual not voluntarily release his tax returns, Mr. Trump is running for President of the United States of America and is free to demonstrate that any speculation is ill-founded.

News outlets would be less interested in the terms of the divorce had the candidate voluntarily made available his tax returns to the public  Understandably but a little disingenuously, Gannett and the NYT argue

It would be deeply incongruous to American democracy to bar the public from seeing the official court records pertaining directly to the credibility and character of a person they must soon decide whether to elect as their president.

It is debatable whether the behavior within a marriage of private citizen Trump over a quarter century ago pertains directly to the individual's fitness for the presidency now. Moreover, Trump never has claimed to have led a lifestyle consistent with the "family values" his current Party emphasized in the past.

However, Gannett and the NYT recognize

"marital fidelity" has become an issue in the presidential campaign, with Trump raising questions about the marriage of Hillary and Bill Clinton and her role in responding to claims of sexual misconduct by her husband.

The sexual habits of a presidential candidate's spouse should not be a consideration in selecting a President. With Ivana now firmly a Trumpist, discerning fact from fiction probably would be difficult were the effort to unseal the records succeed. Yet, in May Donald Trump had maintained

Nobody in this country was was worse than Bill Clinton with women. He was a disaster.  I mean there's never been anybody like this and she was a total enabler. She would go after these women and destroy their lives. I mean have you ever read what Hillary Clinton did to the women that Bill Clinton had affairs with? And they're going after me with women. Give me a break, folks.









Trump voluntarily relinquished any right to a "break," to be inoculated from similar scrutiny, when he himself raised the issue of marital infidelity, especially hyperbolically.  So now add to the other two cliches "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."  If it is revealed that Mr. Trump's hands are dirty, he will have brought it upon himself. He opened up this line of inquiry and the chips (as in Trump's casinos) must fall where they may.

Share |

Trump Keeps Rolling

Donald Trump has told the truth!

Of course, he lies promiscuously. In 2015 alone, he falsely claimed he had "predicted Osama bin Laden." He bragged that he had talked to Putin off-stage awaiting an interview on 60 Minutes, though Putin, interviewed by video, was nowhere near the USA. He boasted that his campaign was "100% self-funded" while most contributions to his campaign were coming from supporters. He contended that his tax plan projected to reduce tax revenues by $10.14 trilllion over the following decade was "revenue neutral."  He argued "we're the only place" to have birthright citizenship, accurate only if "only" is "among 30 or so nations." Trump also stated he "should get credit" for getting Ford to move an auto plant back to the USA, a decision made by Ford before any candidates started talking about it.

There were other fabrications last year, including arguably his most famous, that he had seen "thousands and thousands" of Muslims cheering in New Jersey on 9/11/01. Additionally, there is Trump's famous habit of saying he has "heard" x or y, imposible to refute conclusively because he may have asked friends, family, or supporters to repeat lines he later could say he had "heard."

The year 2016 has brought more Trump statements knowingly deviating from objective evidence. However, when interviewed by TIME on Monday, August 9, the nominee spoke from the heart- and truthfully, which is not always the same- when he stated "I am listening to so-called experts to ease up the rhetoric, and so far, I’m liking the way I ran in the primaries better."

The interview took place "just hours" before the Republican presidential nominee implied the possibility that gun rights advocates might want to assert their right to bear arms by cutting down a President Hillary Clinton. And it took place two days before Trump declared at a rally in Florida

In many respects, you know, they honor President Obama.  He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.








Afterward, conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt threw Trump a rope to grab hold of: "I know what you meant, you meant that he created the vacuum, he lost the peace." But Trump demurred, responding "no, I meant he's the founder of ISIS...."

He so is "liking the way I ran in the primaries better," and that probably benefits us all. Instead of (vice presidential candidate) Mike Pence or (House Speaker) Paul Ryan, we have in Donald Trump a choice, not an echo. A right-winger like Pence or Ryan running against the centrist Clinton would not have produced the stark contrast between candidates that Trump vs. Clinton rdoes.   It gives the American people a clear choice between, in the words of Bill Maher, "a national election (pitting) on one side, a hysterical woman, and on the other side Hillary Clinton.”

Share |

A Fake, Still

The excuses came fast and furious.

The Trumpists had to come up with some excuse after the candidate said

Hillary wants to abolish — essentially abolish — the 2nd Amendment.

By the way, and if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the 2nd Amendment people —  maybe there is, I don’t know.

But — but I'll tell you what, that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges — right now we're tied. You see what's going on. We're tied ’cause Scalia — this was not supposed to happen.

Pro-Trump pundit Kayleigh McEnany stated "I think he's referring to the fact that the National Rifle Associationis the most powerfurl lobby, hands-down, in the United States. So if anyone can stop a very anti-2nd Amendment agenda, it would be the NRA and the 2nd Amendment folks."

Straining to demonstrate balance toward an evidently unbalanced remark, the Los Angeles Times' Jill Ornitz contends it "is difficult to hear what supporters were shouting as Trump gave his remarks and whether he may have riffed based on what they were saying." She did not say what the supporters may have been shouting that would have justified encouraging them to murder the next President but any candidate- even Donald Trump- is aware that his or her words will be transcribed as spoken.

"I've been a little busy," said House Speaker Paul Ryan to imply he hadn't seen the video of his party's presidential candidate encouraging the assassination of a President. He added "It sounds like a joke gone bad. You should never joke about that. I hope he clears it up quickly."

This is a classic. When this eventually blows over, Ryan can claim it was "cleared up" and maintain his support of Trump while as long as it is an issue, it has not been "cleared up." And all without condemning his Party's nominee.








Trump's campaign can claim to have "cleared it up quickly,"Communications advisor Jason Miller alleged

It’s called the power of unification — 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power And this year, they will be voting in record numbers, and it won’t be for Hillary Clinton, it will be for Donald Trump.

Obviously that's gibberish, especially given that Trump was referring to the post-election period when he prefaced his dangerous remark by "if she gets to pick the judges."  As if to make sure people understood him, he added "that will be a horrible day. If, if Hillary gets to put her judges.... this was not supposed to happen."  He is confident it will happen.

So if the nominee intended to make a joke as Ryan suggests, his campaign begs to differ. Either Trump, as his campaign implausibly rationalized afterward, was referring to mobilization of gun supporters to keep Clinton out of the White House.or he was encouraging supporters of the Second Amendment to utilize their right to bear arms to prevent President Clinton from appointing liberal judges.

Either way, it was not a joke or, in the Speaker's words, "a joke gone bad." Either way, Paul Davis Ryan, trying to have it both ways, is wrong. (I was going to say "dead wrong." But this is not the time.)    He is wrong in the same tortured fashion he promptly reiterated his support of Trump after labeling the nominee's remark about a Mexican-American judge "sort of the textbook definition of a racist comment."   He remains the "Biggest. Fake. Ever."










Share |

Second Amendment Remedies

If you're looking for a financial adviser, look no further than Maine Senator Susan Collins. If you're wondering what stock is likely to rise dramatically in value five minutes after you invest, she will know.  In a column published Monday morning in The Washington Post, Collins wrote

I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.

At a rally in North Carolina today, Trump stated

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.  Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.







The media, understandably, will concentrate on the (slightly veiled) recommendation from the Republican nominee for President that the next President, if Hillary Clinton, be assassinated. We shouldn't lose sight, however, that Trump is lying when he claims Mrs. Clinton wants  "essentially (to) abolish the Second Amendment. She not only has not said that, it is unnecessary; with the disappearance of a militia being necessary to the protection of a free state, the Second Amendment has abolished itself.  All is needed are judges who understand the English language and put their pro-gun sympathies aside.

Obviously, though, encouraging assassination of a public official is beyond the pale. And Donald Trump made the remark only one day after publication of Senator Collins' opinion "that there will be no 'new' Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone..."   She may not be a  certified financial planner, but is fairly prescient, nonetheless.









Share |

Second Amendment Remedies

If you're looking for a financial adviser, look no further than Maine Senator Susan Collins. If you're wondering what stock is likely to rise dramatically in value five minutes after you invest, she will know.  In a column published Tuesday morning in The Washington Post, Collins wrote

I had hoped that we would see a “new” Donald Trump as a general-election candidate — one who would focus on jobs and the economy, tone down his rhetoric, develop more thoughtful policies and, yes, apologize for ill-tempered rants. But the unpleasant reality that I have had to accept is that there will be no “new” Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone he perceives as being in his way or an easy scapegoat. Regrettably, his essential character appears to be fixed, and he seems incapable of change or growth.

At a rally in North Carolina today, Trump stated

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks.  Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know.







The media, understandably, will concentrate on the (slightly veiled) recommendation from the Republican nominee for President that the next President, if Hillary Clinton, be assassinated. We shouldn't lose sight, however, that Trump is lying when he claims Mrs. Clinton wants  "essentially (to) abolish the Second Amendment. She not only has not said that, it is unnecessary; with the disappearance of a militia being necessary to the protection of a free state, the Second Amendment has abolished itself.  All is needed are judges who understand the English language and put their pro-gun sympathies aside.

Obviously, though, encouraging assassination of a public official is beyond the pale. And Donald Trump made the remark later in the day after publication of Senator Collins' opinion "that there will be no 'new' Donald Trump, just the same candidate who will slash and burn and trample anything and anyone..."   She may not be a  certified financial planner, but is fairly prescient, nonetheless.









Share |

So Much For Family Ties

"You're not going to be able to insult your way to the presidency."






So asserted John Ellis Bush to Donald Trump last December.  George Prescott Bush (among others) is out to prove him wrong.

At the end of May, Texas land commissioner George P. Bush, son of John Ellis Bush, was already someone of questionable ethics. He then  was named as the GOP's 2016 Victory chairperson with the assignment, reported the Austin American-Statesman, of "raising money and running the statewide campaign to 'annihilate the Democrats up-and-down the ballot this November.'"

This ordinarily is not a difficult task in the State of Texas. The state's voters elect the 15 members of the State Board of Education, of whom ten are Republicans; eighteen judges, of whom 17 are Republican, and nine other important officials, all of whom belong to the GOP.  Texas invariably votes for the GOP presidential nominee, boasts a state legislature dominated by Republicans, and has two Republican Senators as well as a U.S. House delegation which is predominately Republican.

This shouldn't be a difficult job either for George P., whom we now find is strategically unbothered by family loyalty.  So while dad, uncle George, and grandfather George (as well as their wives) have refused to endorse GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump- who repeatedly taunted and trolled JEB during the campaign-  George P. feels no such compunction and

Addressing state GOP activists Saturday, Bush said it was time to put aside any lingering animosity from the primaries — where Trump defeated Bush's dad, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, among others — and get behind Trump. 

"From Team Bush, it's a bitter pill to swallow, but you know what? You get back up and you help the man that won, and you make sure that we stop Hillary Clinton," Bush said, according to video of the remarks provided by an audience member.

This "Team Bush," thanks to George P.,  now seems far more like the Cleveland Browns than the Cleveland Cavaliers.

Having turned the General Land Office into (as his GOP predecessor described it) "an agency where demoralized employees are hunkered down waiting to be summarily fired and walked out of the building with a cardboard box containing a few personal belongings," George P. is now walking out on his family to preserve his political ambition.   Salon's Gary Legum believes after Trump loses

if, as seems likely, the party is going to go through a period of struggle and confusion at both the national level and in at least some states, there will be a need for rising stars to lead it when it comes out on the other side in whatever form it is going to take.

If Bush has any national ambitions, at that time he will be able to point to his actions in encouraging activists who were otherwise loathe to embrace Trump to work for the greater good of the party. He will be able to sell himself as a peacemaker of sorts, a loyal soldier dedicated to the Republican brand even in its lowest moments who still fought to keep Congress and the state legislature dominated by conservative politicians.

He is doing this by turning his back on his father, famously called a "total stiff," a "spoiled child," a "sad sack," a "lightweight," "clueless," "too soft," and "low energy" by the guy the son now has endorsed for President of the United States.  Bush did not take the job years, or even several months, ago. He grabbed it weeks after Ted Cruz and John Kasich had dropped out of the race, leavingTrump the presumptive nominee.  Though Bush could have declined the position, his political future beckoned.

Legum argues he played "rather cunningly" this awkward situation." But maybe it wasn't an awkward situation for George P. Bush, after all.

















Share |